Is a $675,000 fine for sharing 31 pirated songs too much?

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Joel Tenenbaum is out of options. A Massachusetts District Court judge ruled the $675,000 fine levied against him is indeed appropriate and refused calls for a new jury trial, meaning the former Boston University graduate student will pay a staggering $21,774 for every song he shared over P2P networks.

The case has made its way through the courts over the past five years, with a jury initially finding Tenenbaum guilty of copyright infringement and levying the fine. His lawyers argued the fines were excessive, and the Judge presiding over the case at the time agreed. She lowered the fines to $67,500, or $2,177 per song, which record industry lawyers balked at and appealed to higher courts.

Through these appeals, and a refusal by the Supreme Court to hear the case, the original $675,000 fine was reinstated. Tenenbaum’s final appeal was to request a new jury trial, which was denied by a new judge presiding over the case at the District Court level, effectively ending the case.

(On a side note, it probably didn’t help Tenenbaum that it took him forever to accept responsibility for his own actions, which only seemed to anger the judges even more. Additionally his lawyers seemed to love to grandstand more than actually defend — see this site — but I do digress.)

With no recourse left, Tenenbaum must now pay his fines. But are those fines excessive to a general public that does little (if anything) to stop piracy? You could probably argue that.

There is conflicting evidence that piracy actually results in losses to the extent that the courts are imposing on file sharing defendants. While RIAA and others point to the falling revenues of the industry in general as a sign that piracy is affecting them, it may be more due to the move away from physical media to digital than anything to do with piracy.

In fact, there’s actually evidence to the contrary. A North Carolina State University professor compiled data on download statistics of new music found on file sharing service BitTorrent. He actually found a correlation between high physical sales and the amount of time before actual release that the album is found on BitTorrent.

That suggests that RIAA’s moves to reign in its lawyers are a smart move. It’s a waste of money for them, and if they’re really complaining about falling revenues, maybe spending so much money on fighting a battle with so little return isn’t the wisest investment. Then again, copyright infringement is copyright infringement, and stealing is stealing.

Downloading pirated music is one in the same as trading in stolen goods. Those who try to argue to the contrary sound foolish. At the same time, the court system needs to take a look at how its prosecuting these cases, and award the record industry damages more in line with reality.

Until then, nobody is going to take these judgements seriously.

Tagged In

The statutory damages aren’t just intended to recompense copyright holders for their losses, they’re intended to punish violators. So the relationship to the monetary loss of the rightsholders isn’t the whole story.

The problem with the statutory damages for willful infringement is that they were enacted under the assumption that willful infringement would always occur with profit as a motive, so the damages are at a level designed to strip copyright violators of their ill-gotten gains. The idea of file sharing wasn’t on anybody’s radar.

Shayne Neal

Agree 100% with you. This number is insane. If they want to punish people for stealing, treat them like thieves and give them a criminal record with probation for a first offense (no more trips to Cancun for you) and lock a guy up for a couple years with a second offense.

Wasting 5 years of the courts time and legal fees is nuts to levy a punishment that will never be enforceable. It took me a decade to pay off a student loan 20 times smaller than this judgement.

Robert Flaherty

I incarcerarated individuals for 17 yrs.,/the WVa. DPS. Murder, night/daytime burglary, the whole nine yards. All were sentenced to hard time, very rarely fined. Granted, the individual committed a crime, but as with the rest of the ‘laws’ the punishment should fit the crime! Give him 6-8 months cracking rocks/chance for probation/ GB. 28K a song come on! RwF

John W

WHo cares about the court’s time? A guys life may well be ruined for this abject nonsense, at least financially, unless he hits the lottery.

Cameron Cole

Yes. A kid shared some songs and they (courts and the RIAA) ruin him for it. I believe in consequences but this is a non-violent crime that received a ridiculous verdict.

BigOkieTechie

What’s really sad?

Tenenbaum made no one take the music who had no legal right to do so.

If you walk up, find a bank unlocked, go in, and steal money…do they prosecute the janitor for taking the money? No, they go after the you.

No one made all those people take the music from whatever means Tenenbaum put it up on the internet. He didn’t pirate it. He just made it easy for someone else to do it.

But, he never held a gun to anyone making them do it. Now, he’s paying for everyone else’s doing the wrong thing.

Cart before horse, anyone?

Mark Heber

Yes, they do prosecute and punish the janitor.

me987654

So basically he was sentenced to slavery for life (if he stays in the US) for non-commercial copyright infringement.

His only option now is to leave the country and never return. At least he can likely avoid the fine that way

XenoSilvano

I wonder how much I would have to pay if I were ever to get caught for all the stuff that I’ve booted up online, the fine would probably be in the quintillions of dollars by now.

The society we’re all enslaved into is so full of #### that it’s not even worthy of acknowledgement.

Mark Heber

“The society we’re all enslaved into is so full of #### that it’s not even worthy of acknowledgement.”
Could not agree more. If people were simply thoughtful of others we would not need society to force us into compliance.

Adrian Ke

This is the most amazing indictment of how worthless the US justice system is I’ve ever seen. They just slapped effective lifelong slavery on someone doing something that probably half his peers also do, and much more frequently.

buffalo beano

Pirating 35 song or a Corrupt Bank of America , or Goldman Sachs , or Tax Free G.E . , does anyone in America care or is this the new NORM …

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ONOJ3HYP6ZYHCPXPLV5PL76YFM modad62

You are using what is called an ad hominem attack. It is an invalid argument where one has nothing to do with another.

No, you are wrong. An ad hominem attack is an attack against a person rather than the argument being proffered by said person. This is more of a non sequitur, though someone with an actual knowledge of rhetorics might be able to specify this further. For instance, if I tried to counter all of the pro-RIAA comments that you have been making to this article by calling you an idiot, then it would be an ad hominem attack.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Charles-Small/100002946564724 Charles Small

Actually, what you should cite is the classical fallacy of a “non sequitur” – which is Latin for [it] does not follow. As in a recent flamer I saw about repealing Obmacare: “Under Obama America lost 2,000,000 jobs! Repeal Obamacare!” First of alll, those jobs were not lost. Everyone, including Pres Obama, knows right where they are currently: China. Secondly the president did not send them there; Apple did. And lastly, if Obamacare were to be repealed, those jobs would not necessarily come back from China, would they? So there you have your non sequitur!

lucas1024

“nobody is going to take these judgements seriously”
Except for the person who is now an indentured servant to the RIAA.

Derpington

“Those who try to argue to the contrary sound foolish.”
Would you like to explain that position, My. Oswald?

SDsurfin

So, what happens if he agrees to pay the fine and then declares bankruptcy?

Deathbyillusion

Hhhmmm that’s a good question. Cause I’m sure it’s against the constitution to tell him that he cannot file for bankruptcy.

Chad

BitTorrent is not a file sharing “service”, it’s a file sharing protocol. Also, the term you’re looking for is “one *and* the same”, not “one in the same”…. you’re welcome.

JDRahman

People have two types of problems.
Internal: which is stress, depression, relationship issues, etc
External: Community issues, government problems, civil rights, ridiculous court verdicts, etc

And we will always prioritize internal over external.

As long as someone has internal issues, they will not do anything about the external. And unfortunately, too many people have had internal issues for far too long. Meaning the external issues continue to go unchecked and get worst day by day.

Some would say this is planned to keep society in check. But that would be just another conspiracy theory. Although it would make sense of why the UK government would reduce tax on alcohol by 33% when everyone was losing their jobs (4th quarter 2008). Alcohol is by far the best way of ensuring a steady supply of internal issues.

My point is, these verdicts, the silly patent suits, US Congress fiasco and most of the other crap we hear about on a daily basis are symptoms of a disease. You can never cure a disease by treating its symptoms.

The real problem is that no one really cares enough to do anything. We’re too busy trying to find peace of mind.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Knux-Kitsune/598338063 Knux Kitsune

$1 would be too much.

thecityboy

I disagree, I think they should charge him 31$, for the potential loss they incurred because he didn’t buy those 31 songs (assuming you can buy each of these songs for 1$ on iTunes).

Mark Klass

And maybe a fine of say, $15 dollars, so he won’t do it again. Hopefully.

thecityboy

Don’t you usually fine about the same amount as the damages? So 62$ total would be fair ;-).

http://www.facebook.com/mike.derecola Mike Derecola

Fuckin Ridickalick

http://www.facebook.com/mike.derecola Mike Derecola

You can Rip a CD on your computer,. So if I lend one to a friend and they do it, is that a crime,.

blaineiac

…Or, if I lend someone a book, and they read it too, does that deprive the author of some perceived “income”? After all, the “lendee” didn’t pay a royalty to the author for reading it – ergo, he STOLE it? LOL!

C3

You’re missing something there, silly. Lending someone a CD so they can rip it to their computer is not the same thing as lending someone a book to read. The correct analogy is lending someone a book so they can photocopy it, and that is indeed illegal.

Nice try though.

graaten

Well you still deprive the author of their money since the friend will not buy the book to read it again later. And this is what they argue causes lack of compensation for the original authors of the work in copyright infringement.

The problem in copyright infringement is lack of sales because of unauthorized access to the work, not because of copies. There is no real reason why lending someone your book should be more legal than copying a digital book to your friend, both of them deprive the author the same money for their work.

It’s the same with a movie, if you watch a DVD with multiple people they won’t buy it later except for paying support for the authors.

Deathbyillusion

I agree. Also how does that work for libraries? They letting people checkout books for free and they aren’t making people pay the authors every time they checkout a book. Isn’t that like copyright infringement? The authors are losing out on money cause people aren’t buying them. Or when a teacher reads a book out loud to the class there not buying the book. I though I red somewhere that you can no longer watch Disney movies in school in a classroom because of copyright. I know our local thrift store chain that’s ran buy the LDS church got a cease and desist letter from Disney cause people were donating vhs tapes of recorded Disney movies from off TV and then the D.I. aka Deseret Industries was selling them in their store.

blaineiac

Without knowing for certain, I think it’s safe to say that the RIAA, if they had all their dreams come true, would want to eliminate physical media, and find some way to extract payment on a “per track, per play” basis…maybe even “per track, per play, per listener”, like, if you have a gathering of ten people and you play an album, you’re charged ten “track-listener” units…or something. My point being, this business of royalty payments can get awfully convoluted. If I create a VPN (virtual private network) and “share” my music files on it, isn’t that the same thing as having everyone on the VPN being in the same room? I think I should be able to do this w/o any legal entanglements; on the other hand, putting music out there globally SHOULD be discouraged – but not to the tune (no pun intended) of $21,774 per song!

A discouragement of, say, three years disconnection from the internet, would have been more in keeping with the goals of curbing this activity.

http://www.facebook.com/drew.douglas.58 Drew Douglas

Technically, yes. Its funny, back when people used cassette tapes, and they made a mix tape – that is the same crime as downloading music, even if you bought all the original cassettes that had the songs you wanted on them. Transferring from one medium to another is copyright infringement.

Pretty stupid, eh?

Mark Klass

Notice no one replied to you? You’ve got a valid point, and everyone hopes that if they ignore it, it’ll just go away.

http://profiles.google.com/adisharr sven sun

It’s a valid point but the distribution ease and method isn’t nearly the same.

http://www.facebook.com/hector.jimenez.940 Hector Jimenez

Okay so if I I buy all the CD’s and RIP a CD from songs I like a physically give that CD to someone else to use then it should be okay right? It’s pretty much the same as making a mix tape.

http://www.facebook.com/mike.derecola Mike Derecola

What about Youtube that’s the biggest Pirate in the World,. Why don’t they get sued, tell me that, you pencil neck geeks,. No answer that’s what I thought, so shut the fuck up !!!

http://www.facebook.com/mike.derecola Mike Derecola

Child Rapist’s got off more easy then him.I don’t see them getting sued for half a millions dollars,. A big company is more important then a kids well being,.

universalglove

Now, this is the best point of all.

greenknight

“Downloading pirated music is one in the same as trading in stolen goods. Those who try to argue to the contrary sound foolish.”

I disagree, for two reasons. First of all, when you trade in stolen goods, you deprive the legitimate owner of something they possess, and importantly, this concept involves a tangible loss. For example, if someone steals my mobile phone, I don’t have it any more. What is being discussed here is copying – the original is still in the legitimate owner’s possession, and said owner can still use it or try to sell it. It’s a small but important distinction, since with theft you also deprive the legitimate owner of the entire cost of originally obtaining the item in the first place.

You could certainly argue loss of profit. But to do that, you’d have to prove that the person would have otherwise bought the product. Very often, for various reasons, that’s just not the case. There are even questions over whether file sharing results in a net loss or gain for the legitimate owner. Even if file sharing does result in a loss of profit for the legitimate owners, the evidence strongly suggests that the loss isn’t anywhere near as great as people like the RIAA would have us believe.

Then there’s the whole “trading” issue. The word trade generally means some kind of commercial exchange of goods is being made. In other words, money, goods or services are being exchanged between two parties. Yes, Mr Tenenbaum did profit from his file sharing, but only in the sense that he obtained goods without paying for them. It’s still illegal, but I think you’ll find most people don’t consider that to be as serious a crime as someone who actually makes money from selling pirated copies of music. Again, it’s a small but important distinction which should be applied when determining the severity of the punishment. It’s like punching someone in a fight and then being charged with murder – even if the person you punched is still alive and well!

And that’s the real problem. To the courts, Mr Tenenbaum is guilty of trading in stolen goods, because that’s the crime they know how to deal with. But what he’s actually guilty of is copying something for his own personal use without paying for it. Sure, he shouldn’t have done it, but I think most of us would consider that to be a much lesser crime which deserves a considerably lighter punishment.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ONOJ3HYP6ZYHCPXPLV5PL76YFM modad62

You are definitely in denial. It doesnt matter if you make a copy. You are taking something, even if it is a “copy” that was created by using something someone else created and has ownership over. If you could clone a dog, making it a copy, taking the dog doesn’t make it not stolen. You are stealing, period. That logic is completely false.

inco

“
If you could clone a dog, making it a copy, taking the dog doesn’t make it not stolen.”
I… what? Of course the dog isn’t stolen, the owners still have their dog, and you have a newborn dog that until just then didn’t exist. Are you seriously saying this with a straight face?
If copyright infringement were stealing, it’d be called theft, not copyright infringement.

Luc Richer

Uhh…. If somebody has a dog, and I clone it and take the clone, who loses? Dog owner doesn’t feel any loss; I gain a dog.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1654672967 Bryan Read

If the dog owner was trying to sell the dog, then sure, you have just curbed the owner of the capability of selling the original dog, since you have introduced a copy of his property for free. How can you not see this?

greenknight

Yes, you might not get as much for it when you try to sell your dog, but that’s not quite the same thing as having your dog stolen and not being able to get anything for it at all. Cloning your dog without your permission is still wrong, but calling the cloning theft is also wrong.

ChrisLoos

What? No. If you clone a dog, you clone a dog. That’s clearly not the same thing as stealing the dog. Analogy fail.

Here’s a better analogy- You purchase a book, and lend it to a friend. Did your friend “steal” it from the publisher? No. Its even questionable that the act of lending the book deprived the publisher from any income, as you can’t say for certain that the friend would have purchased the book had you not lent it to them.

http://www.facebook.com/derick.empey Derick Empey

Yes, but you’ve also deprived yourself of access to that book. This is still not the same. No analogy to real world objects exist. We must think of this outside of those analogies. The truth of the matter is, by pirating, you have denied the creators of their requested fee for a service or product. It is easily arguable that this is stealing.

nm

A better analogy than the previous. You buy a book. You let a friend scan each page. Your friend now has a PDF of that book. Not stealing, copying.

Kayvman

I think what a lot of people here are arguing is that the old establishment is crumbling. Not by the hands of downloaders, but by the natural evolution of these industries. The ball is being taken out of the major corporations’ hands and they don’t know how to deal with it. The reality is that a lot of these publishers and labels will be gone soon. Yes, because of pirating, but not for the sake of stealing. People don’t rub their hands as they download laughing like some mad villain. These are kids and FANS. The fan is the most important commodity an artist can have. So what the labels and publishers are doing is suing the fans. These are the same fans that will buy the hard cover or physical album or go to a reading or live show where they will give their money to the artist instead of somebody who only benefits from the hard work of an artist while suing their fans. I’ll tell you this as well. The money from these lawsuits is not going to the artists that everybody is saying is somehow the victim. It goes to the lawyers and the industry reps that use artists for their talents.

greenknight

You’ve touched on another important distinction here. What we call “Intellectual Property” should really be called “Intellectual Works”, and be considered a service rather than a property. It follows that Copyright (and Patents) should be considered to be an exclusive right to provide said service.

I guess you could say that someone else who is providing that service could be “stealing” the legitimate service provider’s customers (and note, that’s customers, not property), but again, just how true is that statement? Would everyone who went to the alternative provider have gone to legitimate provider if the alternative didn’t exist?

Certainly, I’d agree that there is some loss of income, but I’m not sure the word we should be using here is theft. Is it appropriate to charge someone with murder when the real charge is common assault (assault and battery)? The argument isn’t whether the person committed a crime, it’s about what the crime was and the severity of the crime committed. And the language used is very important when it comes to that.

syrf

F*ck that shit all dogs look the same.

greenknight

This is what libraries have been doing for centuries, and the overall effect seems to be that more books are being sold. My local library has even been loaning out movie DVDs for years now. Logic says that if everyone who had loaned out a book or movie had purchased the item instead, the copyright holder would have made a lot more money on the deal. From a copyright holder’s PoV, used book sellers do much the same thing, in that a used book seller could buy and sell the same book potentially dozens of times without the copyright holder seeing a cent of the profits.

There is a difference between pirating a digital copy of a book and getting a loan of the same book from a library. But from a practical standpoint, it’s not really all that significant. If I want to read the library book again, all I have to do is re-borrow it. That’s slightly less convenient, but for most of us it’s not a deal breaker.

So why aren’t the copyright holders working to shut libraries and used book sellers down? And if the ability to access the book without paying the copyright holder anything causes them to lose so much money, how are the book publishers still in business?

People are very well aware that it costs money to produce something (be it a book, piece of music, movie or whatever), and are often willing to offer payment to the person or people who provide that service. I think that is one reason why so many people have personal libraries of books they’ve paid for even though free public libraries with those same books exist nearby.

The real question is, how much are the people willing to pay? There are some who will happily pay the full price for a product. Others will wait until it goes on sale. Still others will buy it second hand, and there are some people who don’t want to (or can’t) pay anything at all for it.

Obviously, as the copyright holder, I want to get as much money for an item as I can, so I’d rather have everyone pay full price. But as every retailer can tell you, sales have their place as well, and can even generate more overall profit than when the items are sold at full price. The second hand market is more questionable because the copyright holder doesn’t get anything directly from those sales, but as many people have pointed out, selling an old product often allows them to buy new ones, which means the second hand market indirectly benefits everyone who sells things, to some degree.

So what about the people who just won’t pay at all for the item? Well, no matter what, the copyright holder isn’t going to get a cent from them either, and if they are able to get the item for free it may well prompt some of those who would pay for it to try to get it for free as well (and in many cases, the ones who got the item for free supply it to them). That’s obviously going to result in a loss of profit for the copyright holder. But there’s also the advertising factor to consider. Many of the people who obtain an item for free will talk about it with their friends, and that just might result in some of those friends going out and buying that product. I still think it would result in a net loss in sales, but I doubt the loss is as anywhere near as great as has been described by some people in the industry. I certainly think the loss in profit doesn’t justify the amount of money spent on stopping piracy, nor does it justify the severe punishments handed out to many “pirates”.

saran

How is that stealing? The dog is still with the owner. If i was the owner of that dog I could care less if someone cloned themselves a copy, personally. Your logic is what doesn’t make sense… greenknight made the distinction pretty clear. Your being ignorant is what your being.

ChrisLoos

Right? I’d be flattered that someone liked my dog so much that they wanted a copy.

You are definitely oversimplifying the issue. What has been taken is a potential profit to be made from a downloader who otherwise would have purchased the physical media. That is why it is called copyright infringement and not theft. I’ll say it again. Copyright infringement is not theft. It is copyright infringement. If it was theft, he would have been charged with theft. In fact, one could argue that were it theft, the penalty would have been much less severe. I doubt a misdemeanor theft charge would carry a financial penalty in excess of half a million dollars, and I also doubt that he would have faced serious jail time as a first-time offending shoplifter. The real issue is the “sharing”*. Personally, I think this penalty is absurd and that the RIAA has taken advantage of this man for the love of lucre and to prove a political point. This is the point we should be arguing, and feel free to disagree with me. But don’t come here and try to quote some theatre pre-run bullshit as if anyone takes it seriously.

*The euphemism I use is “sharing”, you can substitute your preferred nomenclature.

Justin Cook

Well put. If the loss of revenue is the real question at hand, he would have had to share the songs a combined ~$675,000 times (using itunes prices). He would have had to have a decent upload of 150KB/s going non-stop for over 53 days straight to hit those numbers, I can’t possibly imagine that for 30 specific songs. And I also don’t know of too many albums that come anywhere close to hitting those sales figures in the first place – and they sure as hell still would without his ‘detraction’ from sales.

http://www.facebook.com/hector.jimenez.940 Hector Jimenez

You lack intelligence….A LOT of intelligence.

Deathbyillusion

You logic is false cause we can indeed clone dogs. If you borrowed someone’s dog and cloned then so you could have one. Even though your not the owner of the dog your not stealing from them cause they would still in fact have there dog back. Also what about NFS copy of software if you rip it and put it online for people to free download is that Illegal? I think not cause it just says not for resell. I didn’t resell it just redistributed it. Also for music these record labels ripoff the artists too. There is many artists that don’t care that your downing their music cause they see that is a plus for them cause then people listen to their music, like it, want to hear more, possibly buy it, or go see them in concert. Artists make most of their money from concerts anyways. Also some artists will sing other artists songs at live concerts is that copyright infringement? Also with programs your not stealing cause its not a physical item. All it is is just code just a bunch of random letter and numbers ect. What also happened to the days of when artists, programmers, ect did it for the love, joy, and fans & not for the money. What companies should do is setup a donation section on their site and if they liked the product or music they can donate money.

Carnigavore

You make absolutely no sense.

>But what he’s actually guilty of is copying something for his own personal use without paying for it.

>he’s actually guilty of is copying something for his own personal use without paying for it.
>guilty of is copying something for his own personal use without paying for it.

Um, copying something for your own personal use WITHOUT PAYING for something is STEALING. And you even said yourself, he’s GUILTY of it.
The sound engineers, producers, and artists, who went to school to learn the craft of the trade, all had to pay to go to those schools. They couldn’t copy or download their educations, for their own personal use, link me please to where you can torrent a Music Industry degree? When they make music, they are making it for a living, to pay back the schools for those educations, and to make a living. Or, are you saying people should just make things that you enjoy for free, and give it away? Regardless of their own financial needs to survive? You really need to reevaluate what you said.

Most definitions of theft refer to depriving the rightful owner of it. This is copyright infringement, which is involved in cases where a thing, which is supposed to be copied, has been copied without authorization. The copyright owner still owns and “possesses” the copyright (that hasn’t been stolen, otherwise they would not have a case) and almost certainly still possesses at least one copy of the music on some sort of physical media (that hasn’t been stolen). Is unauthorized file sharing bad for the content creators? Possibly. One could argue either way. Are artists directly losing money from it? Some most likely are losing a bit.

This debate is considerably more involved than you seem to think it is. Do you really believe that the issue is so simple? Do you think that artists make most of their money by selling albums?

Carnigavore

No, artists make money mainly by doing tours. BUT, do the guys behind the scenes always get to tour with them? No. So, they have to make their money anyway they can. You said yourself the artists are losing money from pirating. Do YOU like to lose money? If so, please send it to me. You make no sense. “This debate is considerably more involved than you seem to think it is. Do you really believe that the issue is so simple? ” No, YOU’RE the one who thinks it’s so simple. You fail to grasp something so elementary as IF YOU DIDN’T PAY FOR IT. DON’T TAKE IT. But yet, in the same breath, you freely admit to people losing money by your actions. You make no sense…..

Justin Cook

I have a desktop image of an Andy Warhol painting. I should be fined ~$1,000,000 for that and another ~$1,000,000 for everyone I let download it by that logic. None of the money would ever go to Andy Warhol (if he were still alive), but rather the individual who bought the painting in the first place, because they have the sole right to charge money and make a profit from it from the moment it becomes their property.
This kind of logic does nothing for humanity and will only have us continue championing companies that cause economic collapses like we recently experienced.
I understand the perspective you are coming from, however, it is very black and white and the world is simply no so clear cut.

Carnigavore

*facepalms* That is the most ridiculous analogy I’ve EVER heard. Your analogy was bad, and you should feel bad. First off, a digital representation of the painting is NOT the original. People have pictures of Mona Lisa all over the internet. But, people still PAY to go see the original, do they not? Your logic does nothing for humanity, because you want to justify stealing and getting over on people, just so you can disregard the livelihood of others to listen to a good song while you sip your latté, as you rattle away at you Macbook Pro keyboard, feeling smug and vindicated in an air of false moral superiority, because you advocate people giving away things for the sake of “Art”, out of the kindness of their hearts. Not considering, that some of them are in it to make a living.

Yee

That’s a very good point you bring up. A digital representation is Not the original.

Though i think we could fight over the definition of stealing and copying the real point is the music market has evolved and grow in ways that isn’t controllable by just simple distribution methods anymore. Companies that use to control the distribution of music are still trying to hold on to these old practices, while also at the same time looking at keeping there profit margins.

I for one will admit to being a “pirate” and also i don’t need any lame excuse to justify it.

I do how ever pay money all the time to go see the original content and am happy in knowing that the performers take a bigger cut this way then from a digital representation.

NewDeal

Why is it that any time someone has words in all caps peppered into their posts, it’s always the most asinine ignorance spewing from their keyboards?

You clearly have no idea how the music industry works, because if you did you would welcome the new model that file sharing will bring. The only–literally only–people that suffer from it are the suits at the record labels who have been gorging themselves on the profits from others’ hard work and creativity for decades. Good riddance.

As for the recording engineers, they’ll get paid by artists who want to record their music. People still like listening to music, even if they don’t want to pay for it, and smart musicians will still give it to them because they know that’s the best way to get them to their shows (where they actually make their money). Some of the fans might even actually pay them for it.

You sound like a sad old man, angry that the world is changing and passing you by. That’s too bad.

Carnigavore

Actually clown, I’m on an iPad and THATS why there are words “peppered in all caps” throughout my post. Go back to Reddit with your whiny grammar bullsh#t. Secondly.i see at least 2 run on sentences in your rant of a response. Unf#ck yourself, before you whine about others. I actually know quite well how the music industry works. And PLEASE source me or provide a link to where “the suits” are the only ones who are “gorging” themselves on profits. I’ll wait. You can sit here and try to justify and sugarcoat being a thief all you want, but, in the end, you’re still a f#cking thief. Point blank. And oOoOoOhh WoOoOo at calling me an “angry old man” but yet, you start off your initial reply to me with 3rd grade perjoratives. F#ck outta here…you sound like a tweenager who wants to validate your sh1t-tier logic, by talking shit online about nothing you have a clue about. Just so your little Reddit friends can come on here and circlejerk you with a like button…f#ck outta here….

Wtf

Weren’t you just insulting someone for using a Macbook and being smug? Sort of hypocritical as you type a smug response on your iPad, while being the white knight for the record industry.

Oh, and keep up the good work, ad hominems are a surefire way to get someone to agree with your opinion and they always make for a great debating tool.

Carnigavore

Yes, I was. Where in my comment did I imply I was being smug, just because I gave the reason as to why my letters were all jacked up, because I was using an iPad, and the letlers come out jacked up. I got it from work, I didn’t throw on a blue turtleneck and go to the store and buy it…. I’m also not sipping a latté. Do you want me to lie? I also know what “ad hominems” are, stop regurgitating the lessons you learned from your cappella college english courses to me. And no, I’m not “whiteknighting” for the record industry. I’m merely speaking out for those people who actually WORKED to get where they are in life, albeit going to school, busting their asses to make careers in the industry, just to have clowns steal the music and disperse it for free. If that’s whiteknigting, by your definition, I’ll be that.

Seeing as though you’re a kid probably in your 20’s whose never worked a solid job in your life, who still relies on mommy and daddy to take care of you,and wipe your ass. You wouldn’t know how hard it is in the real world, just to have people steal what you’ve worked so hard for. Also, stop stalking my comments lol. Go back to argue with a christian or some sh!t…

Wtf

I am a “kid” in my 20s, I also have an MBA, which I busted my ass to pay for with my own money, along with a job I am quite proud of. I do not pirate like you assume. Just because I disagree with the outrageous fine and many of the RIAA’s actions does not mean I pirate music.

So your assumptions are unfounded and you come off as extremely condescending like you have some superiority over the rest of the posters, hence the smugness(smugness isn’t limited to latte drinking hippies).

As for stalking, that was my first post, so once again, you’re quite wrong. So please, if you’re going to share your opinion, try to act like an adult without lacing the reply in profanity and personal attacks, it makes for a more interesting discussion.

Carnigavore

No, I don’t come off with a superiority complex,that’s your insecurity calling. And congratulations on your Devry MBA.*golf claps* Tell me more about your accomplishments!! *sits on edge of seat, waits for a response in awe*….You are stalking me as evidenced by you quoting me from a whole different post, that wasn’t even directed at you. And then, you take the message I was trying to convey horribly out of context, to somehow validate your silly little “point”.

And LOL, just LOL, at how talking about someone trying to “act like an adult”, when you were the one who initially responded to me with pejoratives and false assumptions. Like I said stalker KID, (in various posts now) unless you have something of substance to contribute to the topic at hand, i.e. Pirating music. Quit trying to come on here and boost your silly little ego by arguing with me over things that have nothing to do with pirating. Not ONCE did you mention pirating, but delved straight into personal attacks.
See:
>”So please, if you’re going to share your opinion, try to act like an adult without lacing the reply in profanity and personal attacks, it makes for a much more interesting discussion.”

Mr. Hurr Durr, I haff my MBA, but yet, I can’t practice what I preach! While at the same time, dropping my unvalidated credentials to strangeers online! Durr!” F#ck outta here kid….

Wtf

Devry, try Michigan, and the only reason I even included that was to show just how wrong you were with your assumptions(that I haven’t worked a real day in my life, and that I rely on my parents).

I replied because a good portion of the posts were you just attacking people instead of contributing to the discussion, had you been acting like an adult in the first place I wouldn’t have even replied.

If you consider pointing out hypocrisy personal attacks, then so be it. However, I’d say that is significantly less than what you’ve been spewing throughout these comments. Just try and contribute to the discussion without attacking people just because you don’t agree with their opinion.

Anyways I am done, have a nice evening.

Carnigavore

No, you didn’t include that to “show how wrong I was”. You just included that to argue over a moot, invalid point. And EVERY other post that I initially responded to someone with, that had insults. I did so after they initally insulted me. Go back and read them. YOUR problem is, that you don’t like my opinion and want to attack my character based on that alone. What;s funny is, you didn’t say anything at all to the clowns who initially used pejoratives against me. How does THAT work?

Oh wait, you just want to get on the guy with the unpopular opinion. Oh, you’re so cool…And I commend you for admitting your hypocrisy. As I’ve said again, I HAVE been discussing the topic at hand in ALL my other posts, lliterally except for this one. LOL. Which makes no sense. You come on here and disparage me for insulting other people, (whom insulted me first, but yet, you only say something to me, instead of them as well..Oohhhh look out now we have a tough guy!)

Then, You cry about me “not contributing to the discussion” when I have been all along. YOU were the only one who never ONCE even mentioned ANYTHING about the topic at hand which is PIRATING. You just started in with baseless character attacks. God, you’re a hypocrite. You know nothing about acting like an adult, hence, your vindictive angsty attitude. Go back to Devry and learn some simple debating skills.

>”Anyways I am done, have a nice evening.”

When did you ever start? For the fourth time. F#ck outta here….. :/

mk

Wow you totally owned that guy with your hysterical capitalisations, profanity and malice.
You weren’t debating, by the way. You were bullying. Grow up.

People that download music for free also still PAY to have the original. I have a library of almost 10k songs that I didn’t pay for, yet I still contribute considerably more money than the average person to the music industry. I buy a lot of music on physical media, I purchase merchandise from bands and I pay to see bands play live as often as I can. I have flown across continents to see bands perform, and I have driven for for countless hours to see bands play in cities all around North America. I am a serial music pirate. I “steal” music all the time. If I was not able to “steal” all this music, I *definitely* would not have had the chance to give so much money to so many bands because I would never have heard them. I am not alone in this. The issue is NOT as simple as you seem to think it is (i.e. copyright infringement is not theft, as you stated). I will continue to “steal” music, because it benefits artists. Is that counter-intuitive? Yes. Yes it is. But it’s true.

Carnigavore

You are correct. It isnt theft, because the mp3’s are not a physical object. My apologies for using the terminology out of context in that regard. But, even though you have all those songs, and do all that traveling to see the bands you claim you do, good on you. But that does not mean everyone else does. I know several people with collections of mp3’s and movies that would rival yours, but they don’t purchase one thing to support the artists in any way. They laugh at me because I buy things from the artist on iTunes and this other website that lets you pick an amount to donate to the artist for the mp3. Also, while I can understand your reasoning somewhat behind you discovering music by pirating it, I can’t see it being justified, seeing as though there are many other options and venues to discover music now without pirating it. But, out of all the comments defending the thievery,yours is the most rational….

I agree with you, not everyone contributes as much money as I do (not much, but much more than average). I would like to point out that with almost no exceptions, my friends who are big music fans, who play in bands, who work as sound engineers and music producers, who DJ, who promote, they own large collections of music which they obtained for free over the internet. Not all those who “steal” music should be considered thieves. Once again, this touches on the nuances I mentioned. I appreciate your acknowledging that copyright infringement is not theft, but you refer to “thievery” again later in your response.

It IS “sometimes” justified, and it is not as easy as just claiming theft and calling it a day. And those people who laugh at you are dicks. Good for you, seriously. But those people are not crippling the music industry, and copyright infringement is still not theft, and NOT just because it is not a physical object. When bitcoin was a thing, I could imagine the “theft” of a bitcoin despite it having no physical representation.

Here’s my attempt at an analogy: A library where the librarians photocopy the book for you and then give you the photocopy which you can then keep indefinitely.

HateYou

So when Thak copied the wheel from Thuk, that was the beginning of copyright infringement?! Fuck that line of reasoning forever.

Also, your brain is broken. Most “sound engineers, producers” AND ESPECIALLY “artitsts” never spent a lick of time is a specialist school, moron. They “downloaded” their “education” by being self taught. You sicken me. Die.

Carnigavore

Wow, that was the dumbest analogy I’ve ever read…Also, sound engineers DO go to school, bright one. I’ve met several that have. (oh, and your calling me a “moron” makes your point that much more concise, oohhhhh!!!! Look out guys, we have an idiot that knows how to use 3rd grade pejoratives here!! woooaahhhh!!!) Then, you say “The truly good producers engineers and artitsts “downloaded” their “education” by being self taught. Rick Rubin, Bob Rock, etc etc etc….” So???? “Truly good” is subjective in terms as of to whom actually lkes their music! Just because YOU thik they’re better,doesn’t mean they actually are. Oh wait, just because you said it is, means that it must be. F#ck outta here…

Where did I say I want to see anyone in prison? Quote me on that please? Also, Radiohead and NIN are already established, Radiohead and NIN have been around since the 80’s. They’ve made plenty of money. They can afford to look all cool by giving music away. The same can’t be said for some of these up and coming artists. learn some perspective before you start talking your bulls#it..

http://www.facebook.com/people/Charles-Small/100002946564724 Charles Small

Everyone seems to assume that if records are sold, some share of the profits gos to the artists. This assumption is wildly unwarranted. Suppose you are a kid, just starting out, who has, or might have a “product” that sells well for four weeks (a “hit” on the charts for four whole weeks). And you sit down and negotiate a contract with SONY! Who do you think is going to get the better of such a deal? Wake up and smell the latte, folks! Especially those starting out need to do everything they can to promote themselves. So giving free concerts and free MP3s are A GOOD IDEA!

Carnigavore

Yes, marketing is important to an up and coming artist for obvious reasons.But, if their song is a chart-topper, why the hell would you give away free MP3’s of something everyone wants? Not a really sound business strategy IMO. It’s already proven that they have the exposure, because like you said they were already a hit. Why not sell the product, while everyone still wants it? I can see doing free gigs,and/or concerts. But giving away mp3’s, when you’re at the apex of your career not so much.

G3n3r0

But the “up and coming” artists aren’t the ones signed on with the major labels. The next time you see Jay-Z begging in the street, tell me. Also, if you just replace “in prison” with “paying ridiculous fines that use numbers pulled out of thin air,” then it will match your point.

And just a couple of notes: firstly, if you are going to call someone an idiot, don’t do it the sentence after you criticize him or her for calling you a moron, and secondly, replacing one letter in a word doesn’t help mask its meaning.

Carnigavore

That doesn’t matter. YOU’RE the one who brought major labels into this. When did I say anything about major labels? You mean to tell me people don’t pirate up & coming artists as well? And just because Jay-Z is wealthy, are you implying his music should be stolen, and him making more profit is irrelevant just because he’s rich? That makes no sense. And yes,I have every right to call someone an idiot after I criticize him for it. Ever hear of the phrase, “when in rome”? And I have no clue as to what the hell you’re talking about in the second part. F#ck off, and quit trying to argue your invalid point.

G3n3r0

It isn’t possible to talk about piracy without including major labels. And no, you shouldn’t pirate music, or anything really. But seriously, $675,000 is a little bit extreme for a few songs, isn’t it? You could buy a house for that. And it’s not like any of that’s going to the artists. It’s just going to get pumped into more lawsuits.

Also, by calling people idiots, you are committing a logical fallacy: argumentum ad hominem. So just because someone called you an idiot, you can’t automatically do the same, as it is just plain childish. “He called me a poopy-head, so I called him a dumb-dumb!”
And, on my second point, which you don’t understand: everyone still knows what you mean if you replace a letter with a #. It makes you look ridiculous, and still makes your argument sound silly. Also, telling me to “F#ck” off doesn’t make your argument better, nor does it suddenly invalidate everyone else’s arguments against yours. So please, stop this, and stop saying that everyone else’s point is invalid.
Props on your improved grammar, by the way.

Carnigavore

Yes, I agree with you!!! $675,000 is insane!!! I never delved into specifics about the particular type of punishment that should be administered. But almost a million dollars is jacked up on many levels. Also, as I stated before, my whole “when in Rome” logic applies only when dealing with those who use perjorative’s with me in the first place. I agree with you that I shouldn’t be doing it. But, I take satisfaction in knowing they are butthurt. And it”s a proverbial “taste of their own medicine”. And I know that you guys know what I mean by replacing a letter with “#”, sometimes mods or websites pull your comment if you actually spell it out. Are you new to the internets?

And yes, telling you to “f#ck off” does validate my opinion, because I’m telling you to stop responding with half thought out comments, when I know I’m right in the first place. I’m merely trying to help you, to help yourself, by not wasting both of our time arguing moot points when I know you’re wrong. I don’t care how my “argument” sounds to you. This isn’t a f#cking popularity contest. You may think so because of the fact you can “like” or “dislike” a comment.

Finally, go back to Reddit with your whiny grammar bullsh1t. I speak 4 languages, and English isn’t my first one. I know I make errors in syntax and grammar. But, you understand what I’m saying, and you cry about it because you feel as though you have nothing of substance to contribute, that you’ll attack me from that aspect even though it has no bearing on the underlying premises and assertions therein. f#ck off…;)

G3n3r0

You can’t just be entirely self-assured in your opinions, add this just prolongs useless arguments, like this one. I didn’t say this was a popularity contest. Just look at the arguments of others. And I want taking able simple syntactical errors. Some of the errors significantly decreased readability, and made your thought-out argument lose apparent value.

Carnigavore

See, that’s your problem. You imply things that you know nothing of. Who said my “arguments” were “thought out” I’m merely saying things that anyone with the logic of a 4 year old should know, which surprisingly, you don’t. Which is:TAKING PRODUCTS THAT PEOPLE PRODUCE TO SELL IS WRONG. Why can’t you understand this?..
Also, the term “value” is subjective in context to the relation of the reader. I don’t give a sh!t, what “value” you place on my “argument”. You are no one. I don’t care what you think. If you think my argument is sh!t, then so be it. OoOoOH NOOooOOO!!!…let me go find a corner to cry in.*cries* Also, I don’t care bout looking at the “arguments of others”, I don’t formulate my opinions based on what others think. None of what I wrote had “decreased readability”, because you already have the comprehension of a 4 year old to begin with. As evidenced by your lack of rudimentary knowledge about what it means to steal. Everything I typed made sense.You just want to argue to validate your silly little ego, because some guy made you rage online. Get over yourself, boy.

Also, as I said before UNF#CK YOURSELF, BEFORE YOU UNF#CK OTHERS. There, I put it in all caps, because you obviously didn’t see it the first time. See below:

LOLWUT? WTF is that? You wrote this. Weren’t you just crying about “errors having significantly decreased readability, and made your thought-out argument lose apparent value.” Well, you must not value your own “arguments” either, as evidenced by your idiotic hypocrisy. Dude, like I said, f#ck off, suck up your shallow pride. Go back to Reddit with your lame ass Grammar Nazi bullish!t, because you have nothing to contribute except half ass pejoratives, and whiny 4 year old logic. Once again, F#ck off ;)

http://www.facebook.com/people/Charles-Small/100002946564724 Charles Small

Pass the word! Anyone who has only enough money to buy a commodity PC can get a full suite of creative software, that rivals Avid Pro Tools, Garageband, and Adobe Creative Suite combined, for FREE (http://ubuntustudio.org/)! It’s the Ubuntu Studio Project (not the regular Ubuntu “distro”). You get professional software for photography, art, sound, and video creation and post processing. All anyone needs is some creativity and the determination to spend some time to master these professional tools. Pass the word! Pass the word!

http://www.facebook.com/afuller.vt Adam Fuller

Torrenting a music industry degree? What the hell are you talking about? Major record labels need to die already, they are the ones that have been robbing artists blind for decades. I vowed long ago that I would never purchase another $18 album. Evolve or die, and right now it seems they are choosing to die. I’m in a band and we give our entire catalog of music away for free; we have found other ways to make money.

Carnigavore

>Torrenting a music industry degree? What the hell are you talking about?

Wow. Obviously the use of sarcasm is above your f#ckin head like a blimp. You need to go torrent some common sense. Also, just because YOU and YOUR band want to give away your music for free (Yay you! Here, have a cookie, never heard of you btw) Doesn’t mean that everyone else has to or should. So, quit acting like you’re some kind of martyr. Are you saying it’s wrong for people to want to make money by doing music?

http://www.facebook.com/people/Charles-Small/100002946564724 Charles Small

Of course those who enjoyed the dance should pay the piper. But the money should go as directly from the pocket of the dancers into the pocket of the piper. Which is most assuredly not the case today. Out of the 6.2 billion people on this earth, more than the HOT 100 of them make their living as musicians. Those without record contracts make all their money by gigging. And yes, giving music away for promotion strikes many of them as a good idea. Which must have struck the RIAA memer who bought mp3.com (once the world’s largest legitimate free-music sharing site) and shut it down as a bad idea (for the RIAA). And of those few who have record contracts, many of them never see a penny in royalties due to PIRACY on the part of the sanctimonious RIAA.

Justin Cook

I play in a band who currently has a recording contract with an indie label. We see exactly $0 from any of the sale of the albums, that we ourselves have to sell. The advantage is that we have a record. The people who aided us in recording get paid, and we get another avenue to market ourselves and hopefully bring out more people to our gigs, where we actually make money. I would love to see this mentality applied to the fine art world. I don’t see too many screaming from that end of the spectrum. Mainly because they don’t have a few billion dollar companies claiming ownership over a digital form of a painting. I can only imagine the lawsuits that would abound if that ever came about…

Carnigavore

Also, I’ve ben buying music since the early 90’s when was the last time you’ve seen an album go for $18.00???? Are you f#cking serious? Stop inflating prices and manipulating numbers to suit your lie. What’s funny is, you talk about evolving, but have the comprehension of a caveman.

Stacey Bright

I went to see Steve Vai in concert, this past Thursday. The Story of Light CD for which he is on tour for, $20. Amazing show btw.

Carnigavore

That’s funny, I found it on Amazon for $15.00, his website has it for $24.00 and it comes with a DVD as well as a digital version of the album, amongst other things. Fail troll fails. You didn’t make a point. Like I said, when was the last time you saw a MUSIC CD for $18.00?…That doesn’t have all the extras. Plus, the actual CD itself is $15.00….

Kayvman

The sound engineers, producers, and artists got paid for their work. They got the studio time and the opportunity to make the album or movie or other media as well as play live shows for big bucks. The label already cut the check for them The person losing money is the suit sitting on his/her golden throne at the label or production company. I have many friends in bands who rely on file sharing to get their name out and have a nice following now. They play shows, make their own records and make money doing what they love. They love that people are sharing their music. What has happened in this country is that people have been brainwashed into thinking the only way to succeed is through the label. WRONG. This is the new reality that the label cannot deal with. So they do what every butt-hurt businessman/woman does in this case case, Lawyer up and sue college students. They don’t make adjustments to their business model, they just sue. Well, guess what? I will continue to share music because I don’t believe the artist is suffering one bit. The artists that make the big bucks still make the big bucks. So cry me a river RIAA, your bonuses won’t be huge ever again. Boo hoo.
As far as the artist or producer etc…. The evolution of music is actually in their favour. They can now make records from a basement for a fraction of cost and pocket the extra savings. Two of the best selling Foo Fighters albums were made in a basement studio, so I don’t buy that whole “professional” recording industry bullshit. Furthermore, if the labels lose money and go out of business, it will not mean music will end. It just means the right people will finally get the money they deserve. Karma is a bitch.

greenknight

“Um, copying something for your own personal use WITHOUT PAYING for something is STEALING.”

No it isn’t, and I’ve already explained what the difference is. You’re free to disagree with me, but I think I made my point very clearly.

“Or, are you saying people should just make things that you enjoy for free, and give it away?”

Again, this is something I made very clear in my post. In no way did I write or even imply this. What I did write is that Mr Tenenbaum has committed a much less serious crime than theft, and for justice to be served (justice, not the law), it would warrant a much lighter punishment than theft would.

“You really need to reevaluate what you said.”

Pot, meet kettle.

Carnigavore

Yes, it is!!! And no, you DIDN’T explain a difference. You gave a half wit example at best. And yes, DID imply that the services should be given away for free. What I don’t understand, is why you have such a hatred for people that want to profit from music? Does it anger you knowing that people make their livelihoods off of music? And no, pot does not meet kettle. Kettle is all ceramic blue ikea. Pot is black as hell, mad somewhere locked up in a Thailand prison for smuggling heroin. Try again.

greenknight

Fair enough. As I wrote, you’re free to disagree with me. That said, when your response includes personal attacks and attributes things to me which I neither wrote nor implied, it does tend to lessen the effectiveness of your counter-argument.

Carnigavore

Ugh, for the last 4-5 posts you have been going back and forth with me over bullshit. I’ll let you have the last word. Since you have to defend you online honor.

http://www.facebook.com/mejarema Michael E Jarema

You are correct in saying that, by copying, you are not depriving the original owner of the possession. The problem arises with your statement, “the original is still in the legitimate owner’s possession, and said owner can still use it or try to sell it.”

The key here is TRY to sell it. Once free copies are being distributed, you may not have deprived them of the possession, but you have deprived them of the *opportunity* to realistically sell it, and therefore you have deprived them of a lot of the utility that the good once had. You remove price from the situation, which borks up the entire supply/demand equation.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Charles-Small/100002946564724 Charles Small

It is manifestly unfair and illogical to punsh one person for what others, might or might not, do with the stolen goods they pass on to third parties. To punish someone, you fist have to prove the dimensions of the crime (habeus corpus). It is unconstitutional to pull offences out of thin air, no matter how reasonable the mere possibility those offended might have occurred.

Justin Cook

There is a major issue with applying a traditional understanding of ‘supply and demand’ to digital media as well. The whole supply and demand theory is based upon tangible goods. It was thought up long before the information distribution dynamics of modern computing systems had even been imagined. While there will continue to be credible business in selling ‘listening rights’ (as they are now known), it is entirely inappropriate to think of digital information within the same contextual theory that was developed using understandings such as:
The determinants of supply follow:Production costs, how much a good costs to be producedThe technology used in production, and/or technological advancesThe price of related goodsFirms’ expectations about future pricesNumber of suppliersIt costs next to nothing (minor overhead mostly outsourced to public and/or hosting companies) to produce any single copy of a digital file beyond the first.

AngryGerman

“But what he’s actually guilty of is copying something for his own personal use without paying for it.”

Not exactly. Or, at least, not entirely.

He’s guilty of copyright infringement, not only (and, arguably, not really) because he downloaded songs, but because he also DISTRIBUTED songs via P2P.

The problem with having these discussions about piracy on such an open forum is that you end up with a glut of layman misinformation and misunderstanding, and it all sounds reasonable. The problem is, it tends to miss the point, particularly when you’re dealing with legal issues.

One of the biggest questions, as I see it, is how much distribution rights should be worth in the context of piracy. Obviously, when a musician/record company creates an album and puts it on the shelves at Wal-Mart, they aren’t contemplating selling ALL rights to that album for $12.99 plus tax to every customer that picks up a copy. They’re selling you a LIMITED right: to listen to the music at your leisure, and make a backup copy (generally). So, in effect, you aren’t really buying an album…you’re buying a right to listen to it when you choose. And some of the value of that right lies in the fact that it is intended to be exclusive (i.e., you get the right to listen at-will, whereas others who did not purchase that right do not get to listen at-will). There are some nuances here, but that’s the general idea.

What Pirate Zero (the originator of the pirated content) usually does is purchase the right to listen at-will, but usurp the right to distribute. And then, every pirate after him/her simply steals both the right to listen at-will AND distribute (at least to extent that they share/seed).

The courts are attempting to value these rights of listening and distribution, and they have to find a balance between valuing them reasonably and still dissuading pirates from trampling over the copyrights.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Charles-Small/100002946564724 Charles Small

First of all “distribution” sounds worse that it might be. “Distribution” can mean giving copies to friends or can include massive commercial, for-profit distribution. Secondly, real “piracy” if a violent, serious felony. In this particular case, called what amounts to e-shoplifting “piracy” is egregious hyperbole. What would his penalty have been if he had been caught leaving K-Mart with 2 CDs he had not paid for. That would have been a criminal action. As for civil suits – not criminal prosecutions – despite what the public sees in the press about massive punitive damages, almost always what a plaintiff recovers in a civil suit are their actual monetary losses unless the conduct of the defendant “shocks the conscience of the court.” In this case, actual damages would have been the royalties on 30 tunes. Next, these suits are NOT being brought by people who actually created the material. “Pirates” cannot steal money from the artists, producers and recording engineers because the copyright ASSIGNEES, who the ones bringing these suits, have already stolen the IP from them. Many artists, such as Lyle Lovett, are on public record as saying that, since their sales per CD have been below around 4 million units each, they have never received a penny in royalties due to “creative accounting” on the part of the record industry. The reason that, what should have been a civil suit for actual damages, forced the judge impose this ridiculous overkill of a fine (not jail as would ahve been for a serious crime) is that the RIAA and its ilk bought and paid for the Digitial Millennium Act specificallyh so that they could scare everyone into paying about $2000 per threatening letter when the DRM crowd matches up an IP address with a “pirated” download. Two things need to happen: the DMA has to be scrapped or re-drafted to make the fines fit the actual damages. Secondly, given that artists get only a $0.04 royalty out of every $0.99 iTune and its ilk, an artists’ co-op site (ASCAP and BMI are artists’ co-ops) where anyone who can prove that material is their original work, and anyone else can download said material, needs to be set up specifically to put the big three record companies and the for-pay music sites out of business where they, the real PIRATES, belong. “They are dead and they don’t know it.” The RIAA members serve no useful function in the digital age now that kids learn about new music on YouTube instead of listening to networks of radio stations, such as Clear Channel, where the big three record companies “promote” music by bribing (“payola”) said stations to play their tunes. Copy and paste this into your congressperson’s and senators’ “contact me” pages on their sites. That will take you seven minutes, tops.

AngryGerman

Disregarding the semantics (I truly doubt anyone was confused by the usage of the terms “distribution” or “pirate” in the context of my comment), and ignoring the lesson on damages (I sat through three years of those, and deal with it daily in my practice), it sounds like your issue is less with the substance of my comment and more with the music industry. While I may not agree with your assessment that the copyright assignees “stole” anything (assuming, of course, that the assignment was executed legally), I can’t disagree that artists have been and continue to be exploited by the terms of their agreements with record labels.

Nonetheless, speaking to the original point, the courts are in the position now where they must put a value on the rights that have been infringed by the so-called “pirates.” Even in this case, “royalties for 30 tunes” is not easily calculable without knowing how many peers with whom the “pirate” shared each tune.

Frankly, I think it’s a losing battle for the labels, copyright holders, and courts. The alleged “problem” is too pervasive to combat using individual lawsuits targeted at a few unfortunate downloaders. Even targeting the prominent seeders and/or the websites associated with tracking is unlikely to succeed. There absolutely must be an industry shift to attract legitimate trade of music.

http://netwrok.us/videos/ Viral Videos

When will the US Government do their job and protect the citizens from the Hollywood cartels?

Oh hey! What a coincidence! This is actually a great example of an ad hominem attack. I remembered that you misused the word elsewhere on this page. Actually, in an ironic twist, I’m pretty sure that your attempt to invalidate that commenter’s argument by calling out a logical fallacy was, in fact, itself an ad hominem attack. At first I thought maybe you just worked for the RIAA, but then I figured that an organization with enough resources and know-how to squeeze $675,000 out of a college student for using publicly available software to share publicly available songs over public networks would probably be smart enough to hire someone who doesn’t come off sounding like a pretentious grade-school bully. Have a nice day, I hope you’re feeling better.

Neon Frank

When will the US Government send over a IP “carrier task fleet” to China?

justinwachin

The owner of the song deserves compensation. Most of us would not be happy to see our work taken without compensation. If the song, or other copyrighted work for that matter, is currently being marketed then copyright infringement is actually costing the owner something. However, if the music, software, book, etc. is not available for sale in physical form or electronically, then I don’t see what the owner has to complain about.

Unless the convicted pirate has enough property to satisfy the judgment, I’m not sure what these huge monetary amounts are going to accomplish. Most of us would not have the assets to pay a $675,000 judgement. If every cent you earn for the rest of your life is going to go RIAA I don’t know what incentive there is to earn money or pay off the balance owed.

Guest

Please fix your typo on amount per song. It’s the single most important fact in the article, and you managed to screw even that up. :P

bob

This is plainly ridiculous.
Big Music Industry leaders and lawyers should be shot for forcing a kid (at the time) to pay that much money. This country needs a serious political reform. Getting rid of all banks that buy out our government and all those greedy musical Corporations would be a good first step.

bilalhouri

Did you pay FOX to use a Simpsons character in your article?

mori bund

…and in other news:

There’s still not even one of the bankers – who have caused the crisis and beginning of the recession 4 years ago and who have costed us billions of dollars – impeached in this country.

benskott114

It’s “one and the same.” Those who write “one IN the same” sound foolish and probably shouldn’t be paid money to write.

Disseminating digital media online is not “one in the same[sic]” as “trading in stolen goods”. Arguments might be made that there are many parallels between the two, but this case is most certainly not a good example. There was no theft. There was no financial gain. Also, I’m fairly certain that you meant to say “trafficking in stolen goods” which is the name of a crime in many jurisdictions.

http://profiles.google.com/adsicks jeff zacher

“Downloading pirated music is one in the same as trading in stolen goods. ”
So if I made an exact replica of your, say, TV so as I had a TV and you had a TV, it is the same as if I took your TV, giving myself a TV and you none, IYO?

Chris Balestra

“She lowered the fines to $67,500, or $2,177 per song, which record industry lawyers balked at and appealed to higher courts”
So stupid. These greedy lawyers are only ensuring that absolutely NOTHING is paid. With such a steep fine, it is largely gauranteed that he will simply need to file for bankcruptcy.

If it was left to a fine of $67,500; perhaps he would have thought about attempting to pay, but over a half a million? Completely out of the question.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Joe-Grix/712558192 Joe Grix

Never buy anything from hollywood.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SA4GI234WLKNZZDZ7OHFWLY37Y HungL

You derp derps that get on here and say its only copying and not stealing are just like the tea party in total denial. It is not free! and it is 1000% stealing. Are you people stupid? So if one of you ever wrote a book ( fat chance) it would be ok for me to copy it and give it away so you get no sales? WTF? I thought the younger generation are suppose to be smart LOL …not stealing…keep telling yourselves that line of bull

Robert Taylor

What would be penalty be if he had actually stolen 3 CDs (and mind you, copyright infringement is not the same as theft)? Banned from a retail store and a misdemeanor charge that would probably get a fine and community service. How on earth does a fine of twenty one thousand dollars per 99 cent song make ANY lick of sense?!?

Gareth Stack

Those who misuse idioms like ‘one and the same’ “sound foolish”. Making a copy is not carrying out a theft, those who believe these are “one in the same” are performing a feat of astonishing mental jujitsu. As is the author of this article who notes in one breath research linking bittorrent sharing to increased record sales, and in the next reduces complex arguments over the nature of intellectual property to a moralistic soundbite. Theft deprives the original owner of an object, not a theoretical potential income.

royp

The amount of the fine is ridiculous. The judge now is the one grandstanding What was the basis for such amount? Would those songs even earn that much?
If the judge is trying to make an example of this guy why not just give the death penalty- this would REALLY be a STRONG statement to would-be ‘pirates’. The judge might as well have taken away this guy’s life because it’ll surely take more than a lifetime for him to pay the fine AND live!

Mark Klass

Is this an arbitrary number? Where and how did they decide that they should charge this guy more than half a million dollars?

Neon Frank

Why must I buy the The Beatles White Album every time a new format comes out? Once is enough! Everything I’ve downloaded I’ve already bought as vinyl, cassette or CD to replace the latter.

Samcornwell

“Downloading pirated music is one in the same as trading in stolen goods. Those who try to argue to the contrary sound foolish.”

What a completely bizarre comment to make. How can something thats sole creation was made for ease of duplication (digital files, think about it) have such a profound effect as being involved in the theft of a physical item. The consequences between the two types of “theft” are worlds apart.

Please show me a victim of the crime that Tenenbaum committed.

syrf

Anyways we dont see celebrities begging for money out on the streets do you? After all these “illegally” downloaded music from all over the world. Government just wants to control the people, take control of every single thing tthey can.

http://www.facebook.com/de.pelicula.96 De Pelicula

Well, I think what he did was wrong, I do not know the details but I think that extortion using the “justice” system is totally wrong. Fine should be related to the actions, not to what the mobs want.

And the loses of the mob are not 100 % related to thieves. I used to buy hundred of CD’s. I possesed more than 600 of those. I stopped to buy them when the mob tried to make me buy digital files, and the CD, and trying to make illegal making my own files for my personal use. In that moment I sent them to hell. I do now buy only the songs I like in the poor quality they offer on those files and I do not pay any more for the garbage that a CD has accompanying the good material. I am sure there, is the lost they want to get from their victims. The most insulting, is that they are not fighting for the owners’ rights because that money it is going to be kept by the mob, and the original owners will see zero cents of it. So, who are the thieves?

http://twitter.com/unoriginal_1 Unoriginal One

“
Downloading pirated music is one in the same as trading in stolen goods. Those who try to argue to the contrary sound foolish” That can’t be further from the truth.

Happeh

Repeat a falsehood enough times and it will become the truth.

universalglove

Am I to be punished for singing a song as I walk down the street? or quoting a favorite line from a book that sums up a situation or sentiment exactly? Am I realistically expected to submit a small fee every time I do so? Ridiculous!

Did I take credit for the music or the written line? No. If someone asks, I’ll tell them where it’s from and happily refer them to the authors, and gladly support and advertise them, because I enjoy their stuff. In a sensible world, regardless of stupid laws already made by moronic men, no copyright infringement has happened. I did not steal credit for the work.

Copying and disseminating music, as easy as it is now, is the same as me singing it aloud in public. I’m little more profiting from digital copying than the original authors would profit from someone singing aloud. Trying to control that is an utterly ludicrous waste of resources and attempt to control a society that doesn’t care. However, there is some amount of profit for me with the new digital copy-ability, because I get to listen to the original performers without limit.

However, what does need to happen to accommodate that, and what people do need to get through their brains, is that we need to replace this “copyright protected” economy with a system and notion of commission, and people need to understand that if you want to continue to have more than folksy, homemade music, you need to find a way to support the artists and authors and the production companies you love. And that can be done by sending them some money – commissioning them in a sense – to continue supporting their work. With websites and Paypal and other systems of availability what they are and getting to be, that should be no problem. Hell, if you can pay the band to perform at a venue, all the better. Understand you have to support them or they won’t continue to be around anymore creating what you love, because they’ll have to get day jobs and be as unproductive as your own artistic life.

Enough with the economic system of legalities and suing everyone. Get it through your heads – you wanted free commerce and innovation, then start putting your money where your mouth is and willfully have respect for the producer and the source, but also stop putting things out in public that you don’t want shared, stolen, or otherwise disseminated and then complaining about not being able to control it. If you want control, then don’t expect to live in a free society or one based on innovation. Can’t innovate if you’re constantly walking around afraid of stepping on someone’s possibility of making a few dollars more and having the police come out and enslave you for it. That applies just as much to thoughts, ideas, and entertainment as it does physical goods.

universalglove

A flip side to this coin: yes, it’s a nice notion that people be able to make their “living” performing, but is that really what money should be based on? People need to do productive things, and someone becoming a millionaire because society loves a song they made while they otherwise contribute no other value to society for the rest of their lives… is that appropriate?

No more appropriate than slapping an unattainable sum for a fine on someone who didn’t do that much damage and who can’t be expected to ever earn that much in their lifetime.

The underlying basis for this money system also needs to be revisited and revised, as well as the mores of the people engaging the artists’ products, if these problems are truly to be resolved in a non-litigious fashion.

William Ernesto Cornejo Sanche

Nowadays methods of the entertainment industry should be deprecated. Even singers and actors are realizing that the digital world and the strategy towards it is the key to succeed in the near future and refining their ways accordingly.

Still I believe the Music and Entertainment Industry is puzzled and it feels they are just buying time with this legal procedures, as we say in spanish: “Patadas de ahogado”.

http://twitter.com/elclark94 Evan Clark

In the end, no one will get any money. He will file for bankruptcy, the company won’t get payed back for the songs, and this will just be a big “you better watch out cause we’ll sue you” pussy party. Oh and the record companies and artists are still rich as fuck.

http://www.facebook.com/i.am.lester Chris Lester

The whole system is screwed. The law is decades old, and they try to adapt it to everything. One could argue that many things are being “stolen” on a day to day basis. For me, and for a lot of people I know, if I DL something and I really enjoy it I will go and buy it, or buy the band’s new CD, or a best of album. I hate the idea that we have to pay 15-20$ for 3 songs we like and 12 potentially crappy songs. iTunes makes this easier for some music I suppose, but the legal bullshit on itunes is just as bad. I support small bands that make their music available on a song by song basis for a reasonable price and in a format that works on everything. End of the day, the RIAA is a corporate giant that says w/e they want to be the truth and you aren’t able to fight it. If you don’t want me copying your music/movies/programs put better copy-writing protection on it. That or make the prices reasonable. If I can’t buy a case of beer on the weekend because I bought your movie (that turned out to be shit) then I don’t see why you should get a new ferrari. Fucking rich fags beating on the Robin Hoods (who aren’t even stealing that much seeing as these guys are still raking in millions each, each year.) Bla. Find all the mistakes I’ve made, go ahead. 0 fucks given. Rich fags are too rich, I like beer and I like watching movies with my beer.

Nowt

I remember when you could buy a cassette tape, and copy it on a stereo to another tape, and share them out amongst friends, if anything it gained me more knowledge of artists I’d have been otherwise unable to hear of, and to then go on and see them in concert or at a gig when I did have money.

10 friends bought 1 album each, but ended up with a copy of all 10, there should have been 100 album sales though. I don’t ever remember anyone ever being punished for it, theft or copyright infringement whatever you call it, it was good publicity to get the music out there.

James

*One and the same.

P.S. They’re not, every make mixtapes for friends? Thief.

Mr Moo

all this is piracy crap is stupid, dont these assholes have enough money? i mean everywhere you turn theres some big business or corporation waiting to rape some more money outta you. piracy is just a way for the general public to get somethin back.
Music in the form of digital downloads should be free – a way for the artists to advertise their talent to the public, so that people will be willing to pay to see them perform live in concerts and on TV. If the industry worked like this then only the good artists would be successful. But no, all the big wigs care about is making more and more money, while the majority of us suffer. If i paid for everything i downloaded i probably wouldnt even be able to afford the means of playing it, IE laptop/cd player/dvd player.

If an artist gets more of a buzz from their money than making the world sing/dance then they should be shot.
I would give anything to be able to DJ in a club just to experience the buzz you get from making the crowd go wild.

http://twitter.com/TracyFortune Girl Downunder

I live for the day when the artists can create & promote ALL of their talent themselves…I hope I live to see SONY music exec’s & the rest of those money-grabbing sh*ts pony-up to the unemployment line while the actual artist makes money.

Teddy Mcd

I do not know who Ed Oswald is (said journalist) – but he knows how to deliver his thoughts with a certain ? flair.

Dennis Reiley

While breaking the law should be penalized. The penalty should be equal to the crime. This fine is like sentencing someone to ten years in prison for going five miles over the speed limit. We need to eliminate the DRM law and start over with a much more intelligent law.

condaggitt

BLACK PEOPLE NEVER EVER GETS SUED BY THE RIAA………..You mean NO ONE in Gary IN Camden NJ, Oakland South Central Detroit Cleveland Far Rockaway downloads songs?

NO college who gets $$$ from the United Negro college fund ever got sued…..

and Jammie Thomas home town is 96% WHITE…..

fuckya

piracy is a theoretical loss of profits. Fuck your opinion

John Casey

I am sure the music industry made the exact same arguments when radio DJs started playing tracks over the air. They complained people were allowed to listen to music for “free”. I think we can all agree, where would the music industry be without the radio to promote their new offerings? Now take that a step further, who listens, especially among teens and young adults to the radio today? Very few. How is music being promoted today? Just like radio, even though some people are listening for “free”, chances are, they are also promoting. The RIAA are shooting themselves in the foot.

Chris Tibb Miller

I own a record label and dealing with Canadian copyright laws/issue’s daily, you can be subject to a $1 million fine and face 5 years in Federal prison for JUST 1 copyright infringement/violation on either audio or video productions as of “March 27th 2012”.

For the United States:
Under current US copyright law the factors necessary to make an
infringement a criminal felony are set forth in Title 18 of the U.S. Code.
If someone, without permission, has made, in any 180-day period, ten or
more copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value
of $2,500 the the standard for felony criminal copyright infringement
has been met
Once that has happened a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and
maximum fine of $2.5 million U.S per infringement can be imposed.

In conclusion

I am not aware if the maximum has actually been done in either Canada or the U.S all I know is it can be done.

http://www.facebook.com/gibril.jones Gibril Jones

seems like these courts are clueless about what piracy is and how to administer punishment that fits the crime…

The statutory damages aren’t just intended to recompense copyright holders for their losses, they’re intended to punish violators. So the relationship to the monetary loss of the rightsholders isn’t the whole story.

Deathbyillusion

Wait we have a black man for a president?!?!? OMG alert the press because this is crazy!!!

Indrid Cold

It’s called bankruptcy, and it wipes away such fines. He’ll have no trouble discharging this “debt..”

This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

ExtremeTech Newsletter

Subscribe Today to get the latest ExtremeTech news delivered right to your inbox.